1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 14, 2007, the network C concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant stated in the attached Form of the insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On March 5, 2010, the deceased C filed a request with the Defendant for approval of modification to the effect that “the purchase amount of insurance due to the death of a disease in the terms of the instant insurance contract shall be reduced to KRW 70,50,000,000,000,000 and KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary contract modification”). (c)

On September 10, 2014, among the instant insurance contracts, a written request for approval to change the beneficiary from “legal inheritor” to “D”, which is the birth of the deceased C, was prepared and submitted to the Defendant. At that time, the content of the instant insurance contract was modified as above.

hereinafter referred to as "second contract amendment".

(D) On September 12, 2014, around 00:06, the network C died of liveram, and the Plaintiffs are the heirs as children of the network C. Meanwhile, after the network C’s death, the Defendant paid KRW 60 million insurance money to D, who is the dynamics of the network C, following the network C’s second change of the contract. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs A through 4, E through B, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, as a whole.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the argument was that the deceased died on September 12, 2014 while he/she was living in the state of terminal cancer. In particular, on September 10, 2014, when the death of the deceased, the second contract was changed in relation to the change of the beneficiary. The deceased’s name and signature stated in the second contract amendment request were not written by the deceased, but written by the deceased.

Therefore, the second contract modification is null and void, and the beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case is the inheritor of the deceased, so the defendant is the plaintiffs.